Enhancing Internally Generated Revenue: Issues, Strategies ......2017, Vol, 2 (1): 1-22 Enhancing...

Science Arena Publications

Specialty Journal of Humanities and Cultural Science Available online at www.sciarena.com

2017, Vol, 2 (1): 1-22

Enhancing Internally Generated Revenue: Issues,

Strategies, Foresight & Insights

Okeke. Martins Ifeanyi1, Chidi Mba2, Eme. Okechukwu Innocent2

1Department of Political Science, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka 2Department of Public Administration and Local Government, University of Nigeria, Nsukka & Nnamdi

Azikiwe University, Awka. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract: The increasing cost of running government coupled with dwindling oil-revenue has left various tiers governments in Nigeria - Federal, State and Local Governments with the need to evolve strategies to improve their revenue base. The bulk of most state’s revenue today comes from allocations from the federation account and value added tax and just minimally augmented with internally generated revenue (IGR) from taxes. There is therefore urgent need for the state government to consider more alternatives for revenue generation through which they can enhance their internally generated revenue. This paper is set out to examine ways of enhancing internally generated revenue (IGR) in states. The sub-objectives are to: Examine the current level of revenue generation in the states; Identify challenges that have impeded sufficient internal revenue generation in the states, and; to advance strategies that will enhance internal revenue generation in the states. The paper is descriptive and used only secondary date. It adopted the fiscal federation theory as the theoretical framework. The findings are that: internally generated revenue constitutes just a small proportion of the state finance; the current system of revenue generation is fraught with problems; the revenue base of the states is uneven, so narrow and need to be diversified. To enhance internal revenue generation, strategies such as establishment of a dependable data base which is accessible is required, eliminating all sources of revenue leakages through the automation of revenue collection system, tracking the underground economy for more revenue generation, diversification of the revenue base through wealth creation among others are necessary panacea. Key words: Internally generated revenue, Revenue generation, Enhancement, Strategies.

INTRODUCTION

It is no longer news that Nigeria’s “oil is depleting”. Furthermore, the reduction in global oil prices and

volume demanded has in recent times made diversification of the Nigerian economy from over-dependence

on oil a mandatory policy issue. Unfortunately, Oil Revenue dependence has essentially “milked the cow

dry”. Thus, the increasing cost of running government coupled with this dwindling revenue has left various

tiers governments in Nigeria-Federal, State and Local Governments with the need to evolve strategies to

improve their revenue base. Since the last one year, the near collapse of the national economy has created

serious financial stress for all tiers of government but worst affected are the states and local governments.

Despite the numerous sources of revenue available to the various tiers of government which were

specified clearly in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, it is awesome to note that since

the 1970s till date, over 80% of the annual revenue of the three tiers of government came from petroleum as

against what was obtainable in the 1960s when agriculture, mining and other sources of revenue account for

the lion share of the regions’ and by extension the nation’s annual revenue. The serious decline in the price of

oil in recent years has consequently led to the decrease in the funds available for distribution to the states

(Adesoji and Chike, 2013:419). Recent statistics show that “most state governments generate only 15% of

their revenue and depend on federal allocation for further sustenance. Unfortunately, this is no longer

sustainable” (Balogun, 2015:1). With the 2015 general elections over new state governors without being

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Specialty Journal of Humanities and Cultural Science, 2017, Vol, 2 (1): 1-22

2

prodded, now have to focus on planned strategies for a miraculous turn-around from oil dependence to self

sustainability. There is no doubt that a deliberate plan to stop leakages, wastages and corrupt practices in

the system is imperative but this will only make sense where the inflow is certain. This therefore means that

there is a greater need for the state governments to consider more alternatives for revenue generation

through which they can enhance their internally generated revenue.

2. Statement of the Problem

A lot of development challenges confront Nigeria today. To have national development in our context,

means that all components of the Nigerian federation will have equal or near equal opportunities and near

even resources to grow and develop at their own place. It also means that all citizens of Nigeria should have

opportunities to actualize their potentials and maximize their God given talents in a manner that constantly

emphasizes and builds on the unity of Nigeria as bedrock. A steady flow of revenue that would enable

Nigeria to lay the foundation for stability and relative self sufficiency would help the country’s quest for

national development (Olusola, 2011). The federal government cannot do it on its own. In the same vein,

states cannot attain national development on their own. Neither can local governments. It is an end that

requires collective effort and responsibility.

Nigeria’s poverty index like the country’s HDI rank (Elamah, 2015) compared poorly with the rest of

the SANE and the BRIC economies. SANE economies are the four largest economies in Africa - South Africa,

Algeria, Nigeria and Egypt. BRIC economics are those which according to the investment banking firm -

Goldman Sachs - may become among the four most dominant economies by the year 2050 - Brazil, Russia,

India and China. This shows that there is a lot of work to be done in Nigeria. The challenge pertaining to the

sheer amount of revenue required to address the development challenges that confront Nigeria today is

huge. In addition, even while recognizing that government alone cannot fund the development requirements

alone, (private-public partnerships and financial institutional involvement will also be solely required), there

is still much that Government can do in growing internally generated revenue.

The need for states and local governments to generate adequate revenue from internal sources has therefore

became a matter of extreme urgency and importance. This need should engender zeal on the part of the state

and local governments and even the federal government to look for new sources of revenue or to become

aggressive and innovative in the mode of collecting revenue from existing sources. Since the importance of a

non-oil revenue base is now being emphasized, the way forward is therefore diversification of the nation’s

economy though innovative strategies, that would boost the nation’s economy. Internally generated revenue

through taxation and other non-tax means are noted as top on the agenda to solve the problem. The federal,

state and local governments’ efforts towards reforming our internal revenue generation system is here put

into perspective for enhanced performance. The puzzle therefore is: what should state governments do to

enhance their internally generated revenue so as to be self sufficient enough not to rely more on the revenue

from the depleted federation account? This is the task to be addressed in this paper.

This will be done by providing answers to the following questions:

i) Have states in Nigeria been substantially generating enough internal revenue to augment their

federal allocations?

ii) What problems have militated against efficient internal revenue generation (capacity and

techniques) in states?

iii) What innovative strategies should be put in place to enhance internal revenue generation in

states?

3. Objectives

The broad objective of this paper is to examine ways of enhancing internally generated revenue (IGR)

in states. The sub-objectives are, to:

i) Examine the current level of revenue generation in the states;

ii) Identify challenges that have impeded sufficient internal revenue generation in the states.

iii) Advance strategies that will enhance internal revenue generation in the states.

4. Methodology

This paper is descriptive and uses only secondary method of data collection. For secondary sources,

the paper relied on relevant information from newspapers, textbooks, journals, government documents,

internet and annual report of the internal revenue departments. From these documents, current information


3

on issues of revenue and how to enthrone an enhanced revenue generation process in the state will be

elicited. A critical analysis of the contents of these documents will be made so as to arrive at valid

conclusions.

5. Brief Literature Review

5.1 Revenue

The term revenue has been defined by many scholars in different ways. Elamah, (2015) defined

revenue as the fund required by the government to finance its activities generated from different sources

such as taxes, fines, fees, borrowings, etc. It is also defined as the total amount of income that accrues to an

organization (public or private) within a specified period of time (Balogun, 2015). Ayegba (2013) equally

defined revenue as a general term for all monetary receipts accruing from both tax and non tax sources. He

went further to elucidate that revenue from tax and non tax sources as well as fees, grant and contributions

constitute the live wire of the state government. As Adesoji and Chike (2013:421) expatriates, “state revenue

comprise of receipt from taxation as well as those which are not the proceeds of taxation, but of either the

realization from the sale of government properties or other interest and returns from loans and investment

earning”. Olusola (2011) equally asserts that revenue receipt include “routine” and “earned” income. For

these reasons, according to him, revenue do not include borrowing and recovery of loans from other parties,

but on the contrary includes tax receipts, donations, grants, fees, fines and so on. From the above definitions,

it can be said that revenue is the total amount of income acquiring to a state from various sources within a

specified period of time. Nigeria Governor’s Forum (2012) defined revenue as tolls, taxes, rates, fees,

penalties, rents, forfeitures, dues and other receipts of government from whatever source arising over which

legislature has power of appropriation including proceeds of loans raised. Section 160 (9) of the 1989

constitution and Section 5, 162 (10) of the 1999 constitution defined revenue as any income or returns

accruing to, or derived by the government from any property belonging to government, any return by way of

interest on loans and dividends in respect of shares or interest held by the government, in any company or

statutory body, incidental sources resulting from a particular environment, permissive sources from normal

operations and statutory sources recognized by the Nigerian constitution (FRN, 1999). Tapang (2012) states

that there are basically two types of revenue that accrues to states governments. These are internally

generated revenue and revenue from the federation account.

5.2 Internally Generated Revenue.

Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) is revenues generated internally apart from subventions, allocation,

and grants from Governments. Every organization has various ways of enhancing her internal sources of

revenue. For example, in the universities, student registration fees, rent of hall, rent of equipments,

donations, dividends, interest, payment for transcript, payment for academic gown among others constitute

their internal revenue bases. At the Local government level they equally have such internal sources. For

instance, according to Okolie & Eze (2004:168), Local government internal sources of revenue refer to the

avenues by which the local governments generate money from within its local areas. Internal revenue

generations are the exclusive sources of revenue accrued to the local government system in Nigeria. They are

that revenue which the local government alone is in charge. They are the sources of revenue which has been

sustaining local government before the 1976 local government reform. They are the sources of revenue in

which local government fall back on if the external ones fail. In fact, they are the traditional sources of

revenue due for local government system in Nigeria.

Internally Generated Revenue in normal day to day parlance refers to those revenue sources that are

generated solely by the state and local governments. Adesoji and Chike (2013:241) defined it as “those

revenues that are derived within the state from various sources such as taxes (pay as you earn, direct

assessment, capital gain taxes, etc), and motor vehicle license, among others”. State government as the

second tier of government in Nigeria derives its revenue from various sources which are by no means

uniform among the states. Hence, states derive their revenue depending on the sources available to them

(Okoh, 2004).

5.3 Revenue Generation Strategies

Strategies are designed as means of achieving desired goals and objectives. Neil (2011) defined

strategy as the mediating force between the organization and the environment. When linked to the process of


4

management, it is viewed as “organized development of the resources of the functional areas such as revenue

service, marketing, manufacturing etc in pursuit of its objectives” (Alao and Alao, 2013:24). From the

foregoing, strategy is a means of achieving set objectives; its link to revenue generation require the

strategically laying of plans that will move from general to specific with a view to executing the real intent of

revenue generation effort particularly in the state and local government system and in public sector in

general. Revenue generation is the main source of income to the states and local government. IFRS 18

recommends that revenue recognition is dependent upon the terms of the contract between the entity and

the buyer of goods, the recipient of the services or the users of the assets of the entity. The aim of revenue

generation as stipulated by the Federal Government is income generation through personal and income

taxes, adverts or bill-board, business premise registration, among others. Alao and Alao, (2013) notes that

due to the wideness of the revenue sources, tactical plans are required to get grip of harnessing resources to

enable collection, and reduction or elimination of tax avoidance and evasion. The internal revenue

department is the income generating organ for the state and is faced with the herculean task of collecting

taxes in various forms from the public.

According to Norton & Kaplan (2012), the finance focus is not enough to effectively handle the diverse

types of revenue to be collected. Even though the financial health of an organization such as the state is

essential, there are other intervening variables which are necessary for goal attainment. Strategic plans

aimed at achieving organizational goals therefore should consider the satisfaction of everyone that is

concerned or linked to achieving the revenue collection goal. Improving the approach to the task acquires

setting of goals, which has to do with the quality of service, income generation mix along with other drivers

directed at attaining organizational goals. In line with this, a tool to cater for better measures of the

organization’s capacities or that will create long term value by identifying relevant key drivers such as

customers, financial and operational plans, innovativeness, etc, is the balanced scorecard that should be

sought in this dispensation.

6. Theoretical Framework

This paper adopted the fiscal federation theory as the basis for this work. The basic foundations for

the initial theory of Fiscal Federation were laid by Kenneth Arrow, Richard Musgrave and Paul Samuelson.

Samuelson’s two important papers on the theory of public good (1954, 1955), Arrow’s discourse on the roles of

public and private sectors (1970), and Musgrave’s book on public finance (1959) provided the framework for

what has come to be accepted as the proper role of the state in the economy.

Within this framework, some roles were identified for the government sector. These were the roles of

government in correcting various forms of market failure; ensuring an equitable distribution of income and

seeking to maintain stability in the macro-economy at full employment and stable prices.

The theoretical framework in question, basically a Keynesian one, canvassed for an active role of the

state in economic affairs. Thus the government was expected to step in where the market mechanism failed

due to various types of public goods and the need for government to generate revenue to effectively provide

them. By this, the role of government in maximizing social welfare through public goods provision came to

be assigned to the lower tiers of government. The other two roles of income distribution and stabilization

were, however, regarded as suitable for the central government until in recent times when it became proven

that she cannot alone do that comfortably. The central government’s expected role of ensuring equitable

distribution of income, maintenance of macro-economic stability and provision of public good that are

national in character are no more sacrosanct. Decentralized levels of government’s expected role to

concentrate on the provision of local public goods with central government providing assistance in the form of

matching grants equally has become overtaken by the economic realities of the time leading to the resorting

to internal revenue generation diversification by the other levels of government as a panacea.

The next step in the theoretical framework was to determine the appropriate taxing framework. In

addressing this tax assignment problem, attention was paid to the need to avoid distortions resulting from

decentralized taxation of mobile tax bases. Adesoji & Chike (2013) emphasized that the extensive application

of non-benefit taxes on mobile factors at decentralized levels of government could result in distortions in the

location of economic activity. It should be pointed out however, that recent literature emphasis the

importance of reliance on own revenues for financing local budgets as a way out for the inadequacies in the

fiscal equalization argument of the need for financial assistance to the poorer regions. A number of authors

(Weingast, 1995; McKinon 1997) have drawn attention to the dangers of decentralized levels of government


5

relying too heavily on intergovernmental transfers for financing their budgets and this has formed the basis

for the argument for the enhancement of internally generated revenues among local constituents in a federal

structures.

7. Insight into Internal Revenue Generation in the States

Statistics show that in the recent past, the total monies allocated from federation and VAT pool accounts

(including excess crude allocation) for the period from June 1999 to May 2007 as an instances, to the three

tiers of government, which represents the higher amount of revenue collected relative to that collected

individually within each state and local government, amounted to N16.5 trillion. We are dependent on a

revenue source that is neither sustainable nor enlists the collective will and accountability of the people of

Nigeria. Of the monies allocated to the three tiers of government, over 85% derived from crude oil and crude

oil related revenue. Specifically from the CBN figures, in 2001, percentage was 77%, and in 2006 as a result

of higher oil prices over the years, it averaged at 89% contribution. The shares of federation account to states

constitute 57.97% in 2002 of the total revenue plus grant and this rose to 65.82% in 2006; while the

internally generated revenue declined from 13.38% in 2002 to 8.11% in 2006 (CBN, 2006). A relative

reduction in the contribution of oil to the revenue pot started to become evident in 2007 with reducing oil

production level as a result of the various issue in the oil industry and an increase in non-oil tax revenue

generation. Today oil revenue has reduced drastically. To this end, state governments have come to realize

that the increase in sustainable non-oil revenue must therefore move at a much faster pace on a sustainable

basis.

Despite this need and realization, a review of the figures from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2004)

show that the average percentages of internally generated revenue in relation to the federal allocation were

between 5% - 9% for most non-oil producing states. As an instance, Kano was only able to slightly exceed

10% in 2004 to date due to aggressive revenue generation efforts, with only Lagos as an exception.

Furthermore, in 2012, the IGR, for the 36 states in Nigeria was just about N555b, out of which the 19

states of the north generated only N875 or 15%; the South West generated N261.2b or 47%; the South-South

accounted for N150b or 27% and the South East (456 or 8%. In other words, the south generated N468 or

85% of the total IGR for 2012 (Balogun, 2015). Statistics further show that eight (8) states namely: Anambra,

Bauchi, Bayelsa, Ebonyi, Jigawa, Kano, Kwara, and Sokoto, had no data for 2012. The reason for this may

not be totally unconnected to political reasons or inefficiency in the administrative machineries of the states.

Whatever the reasons the people of these states must hold their Governors accountable. The tables below

captures the updated IGR and their sources between 2008-2014:

Table 1: Internally Generated Revenue Summary by States between 2008 – 2014 in N bn

S/

N State 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1 Abia 11,124,643,033.2

2

11,763,510,585.8

6

16,751,700,375.5

8 12.4

2 Adamaw

a 4,208,037,781.45 4,149,550,775.70 4,615,407,803.00 4,149,550,775.70 4.9

3 Akwa

Ibom

10,133,958,927.0

0

11,678,520,984.0

0

13,516,810,150.0

0

15,398,828,428.0

0 15.6

4 Anambr

a 7,655,785,733.05 6,148,922,395.00 7,601,585,012.15 8,731,599,921.43 10.4

5 Bauchi 3,402,848,015.39 4,463,780,451.92 4,064,710,425.23 4,937,242,874.83 4.8

6 Bayelsa 4,710,021,000.00 10,500,936,262.8

8 4,958,806,727.00

10,500,936,262.8

8

10,958,263,688.

00

7 Benue 6,877,690,630.00 11,131,343,534.5

8 8,436,560,608.98 8,373,720,592.15 8.2

8 Borno 2,108,612,985.25 2,282,102,699.76 2,444,613,205.37 2,132,815,258.00 2.7

9 Cross

River 7,870,941,915.00 9,159,651,948.00

12,734,560,333.0

0

12,002,167,999.5

7 15.7


6

10 Delta 26,087,346,526.0

0

34,750,081,881.9

3

45,566,897,481.0

0

50,208,229,986.9

1 42.8

11 Ebonyi 12,998,269,207.6

9 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 11.0

12 Edo 10,651,999,356.6

0

14,764,018,237.4

4

18,880,055,380.8

3

18,899,322,710.4

7 17.0

13 Ekiti 1,554,020,325.64 2,489,797,191.33 3,787,607,515.35 2,339,670,199.77 3,462,341,448.3

2

14 Enugu 13,795,511,815.0

0 7,287,161,299

12,209,587,683.0

0

20,203,801,863.0

0 19.2

15 Gombe 2,954,868,571.34 3,153,362,788.35 3,717,188,863.22 3,870,998,757.79 5.2

16 Imo 5,714,554,547.72 5,806,462,989.22 6,810,221,957.04 7,583,501,933.27 8.1

17 Jigawa 1,241,956,756.54 1,482,918,912.88 6.3

18 Kaduna 11,564,414,063.4

8 9,781,946,157.96

11,531,795,961.6

9

10,932,071,462.5

9 12.7

19 Kano 6,618,936,565.04 6,618,936,565.04 11,051,971,481.6

1

17,142,211,079.9

4 13.7

20 Katsina 3,151,689,985.00 4,239,692,674.00 5,029,720,846.00 6,852,511,585.00 6.2

21 Kebbi 3,807,258,812.42 4,472,397,621.47 5,424,015,848.65 3,732,343,145.11 3.8

22 Kogi 2,217,504,390.25 2,848,556,782.15 3,185,459,549.72 5,020,349,740.18 6.5

23 Kwara 7,295,348,963.22 8,816,657,944.50 11,317,269,584.3

6

13,838,085,972.5

1 12.5

24 Lagos 149,966,383,196.

47

202,761,061,679.

60

219,202,426,843.

89

384,259,410,959.

19 276.1

25 Nasaraw

a 1,850,541,963.18 4,132,282,812.68 4,132,282,812.68 4,012,291,835.93

4,085,127,585.7

0

26 Niger 3,257,215,894.60 4,115,777,679.30 3,782,827,634.99 4,115,777,679.30 5.7

27 Ogun 7,917,662,341.92 10,838,698,403.2

0

12,438,765,025.2

2

13,777,026,969.6

3 17.4

28 Ondo 6,480,372,918.69 8,015,725,375.26 10,153,042,597.0

1

10,498,697,469.9

9 11.7

29 Osun 3,376,735,645.43 7,398,572,036.48 5,020,250,633.94 7,284,225,003.77 8.5

30 Oyo 10,488,362,233.8

0 8,915,603,182.50

14,598,808,723.1

0

15,251,369,563.2

4

16,307,233,700.

20

31 Plateau 3,398,815,261.07 4,520,622,617.37 6,927,858,653.07 8,486,806,640.08 8.2

32 Rivers 49,632,280,280.9

2

52,711,985,543.2

7

66,275,698,676.0

1

87,914,415,268.8

0 89.1

33 Sokoto 3,888,400,925.16 4,185,153,701.13 4,313,699,006.03 5,509,132,929.43 5,617,763,260.3

5

34 Taraba 1,284,745,422.40 2,869,031,498.92 3,418,289,991.33 3,344,006,052.45 3.8

35 Yobe 5,960,502,339.45 2,385,653,776.94 1,785,221,060.95 3,072,005,109.88 3.0

36 Zamfara 2,068,729,575,95 1,714,432,462.63 2,592,935,139.95 3,039,396,601.83 3.1

Sources: National Bureau of Statistics / Joint Tax Board


7

Table 2: Detailed Sources of Internally Generated Revenue Summary by States according to Sub-heads for

2014 in N bn

S/N State PAYE Direct

Assessment Road Taxes Other Revenue Total

1 Abia ------- ------- --------- --------- ---------

2 Adamawa ------------ -------- ------- --------- --------

3 Akwa

Ibom -------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------

4 Anambra ------------ --------- --------- -------- ---------

5 Bauchi -------- --------- -------- --------- -----------

6 Bayelsa -------- ---------- -------- -------- 10,958,263,688.00

7 Benue ------- ------- ------- ------- ----------

8 Borno ------- ------- ------- -------- ----------

9 Cross

River ------ ------- -------- -------- ---------

10 Delta ------- ------- ------- ------- --------

11 Ebonyi ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------

12 Edo ------- -------- ------- ------- -------

13 Ekiti ------- ------- -------- ------ 3,462,341,448.32

14 Enugu ------- ------- ------- ------- --------

15 Gombe ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------

16 Imo ------- ------- ------- ------- --------

17 Jigawa ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------

18 Kaduna ------- -------- ------- ------- -------

19 Kano ------- ------- ------- ------- --------

20 Katsina ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------

21 Kebbi ------- -------- ------- ------- -------

22 Kogi ------- ------- ------- ------- --------

23 Kwara ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------

24 Lagos ------- -------- ------- ------- -------

25 Nasarawa ------- ------- ------- ------- 4,085,127,585.27

26 Niger ------- ------- ------- ------- --------

27 Ogun ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------

28 Ondo ------- ------- ------- ------- --------

29 Osun ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------

30 Oyo 9,521,748,694.62 1,813,138,318.00 677,622,203.00 4,294,724,484.60 16,307,233,700.22

31 Plateau ------- ------- ------- ------- --------

32 Rivers ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------

33 Sokoto 2,694,180,642.49 9,268,649.60 115,287,751.00 2,799,026,217.26 5,617,763,260.35

34 Taraba ------- ------- ------- ------- --------

35 Yobe ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------

36 Zamfara ------- -------- ------- ------- -------



8


2013 in N bn

S/

N State PAYE

Direct


1 Abia ------- ------- --------- --------- ---------

2 Adamawa 2,375,541,950.71 157,018,836.00 51,078,910.84 1,565,911,078.15 4,149,550,775.70

3 Akwa

Ibom

13,181,780,320.0

0

1,308,842,357.0

0 283,687,684.00 624,518,067.00 15,398,828,428.00

4 Anambra 2,984,381,448.98 366,853,612.20 133,500.00 5,380,231,360.25 8,731,599,921.43

5 Bauchi 3,253,578,480.41 63,073,572.25 503,172,212.17 1,117,418,610.00 4,937,242,874.83

6 Bayelsa 7,536,170,807.24 100,754,802.49 39,139,650.00 2,824,871,003.15 10,500,936,262.88

7 Benue ------- ------- ------- ------- 8,373,720,592.15

8 Borno 1,824,343,597.00 70,580,737.00 194,954,529.00 42,936,395.00 2,132,815,258.00

9 Cross

River 4,344,576,832.58

1,335,307,435.7

5 1,199,935,546.18 5,122,348,185.06 12,002,167,999.57

10 Delta 42,481,269,521.0

0

4,509,641,842.4

4 413,759,637.88 2,803,558,985.59 50,208,229,986.91

11 Ebonyi ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------

12 Edo 8,774,697,495.34 2,139,285,255.1

7 770,396,203.08 7,214,943,756.88 18,899,322,710.47

13 Ekiti ------- ------- -------- ------ 2,339,670,199.77

14 Enugu 4,623,618,648.00 822,885,348.00 257,629,486.00 14,499,668,381.0

0 20,203,801,863.00

15 Gombe 3,870,998,757.79

16 Imo ------- ------- ------- ------- 7,583,501,933.27

17 Jigawa ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------

18 Kaduna 7,329,598,926.75 1,191,409,049.6

0 604,504,161.23 1,806,559,325.01 10,932,071,462.59

19 Kano ------- ------- ------- ------- 17,142,211,079.94

20 Katsina 4,016,416,111.00 674,490,933.00 117,998,205.00 2,043,606,336.00 6,852,511,585.00

21 Kebbi 1,908,260,434.11 970,989,006.26 40,036,580.99 813,057,123.75 3,732,343,145.11

22 Kogi 4,107,554,751.00 9,384,425.12 104,837,419.48 798,573,144.58 5,020,349,740.18

23 Kwara 3,780,239,626.91 507,508,829.05 305,330,047.00 9,245,007,469.55 13,838,085,972.51

24 Lagos ------- -------- ------- ------- 384,259,410,959.1

9

25 Nasaraw

a 3,487,007,693.44 84,245,555.32 248,556,507.00 192,482,080.17 4,012,291,835.93

26 Niger 2,714,520,274.04 43,739,514.17 585,761,685.09 771,756,206.00 4,115,777,679.30

27 Ogun 10,167,996,039.3

7 729,448,692.09 574,167,984.79 2,305,414,253.38 13,777,026,969.63

28 Ondo 5,812,602,534.45 203,766,849.87 306,181,078.00 4,176,147,007.67 10,498,697,469.99

29 Osun 5,030,164,943.82 516,456,706.40 610,492,714.20 1,127,110,639.35 7,284,225,003.77

30 Oyo 8,447,206,939.39 1,533,244,734.0

0 813,207,796.53 4,457,710,093.32 15,251,369,563.24

31 Plateau 5,395,474,638.03 58,868,697.79 505,731,170.00 2,526,732,134.26 8,486,806,640.08

32 Rivers 68,647,209,435.4

9 46,731,155.78

19,220,474,677.5

3

87,914,415,268.8

0

33 Sokoto 2,875,170,700.58 8,606,920.00 105,938,629.00 2,519,416,679.85 5,509,132,929.43

34 Taraba 2,049,507,768.88 188,201,339.43 110,745,340.00 995,551,604.14 3,344,006,052.45

35 Yobe 1,010,342,837.89 65,614,090.66 37,540,669.72 1,958,507,511.61 3,072,005,109.88

36 Zamfara 1,501,077,534.08 191,681,560.63 61,765,760.00 1,284,871,747.12 3,039,396,601.83



9


2012 in N bn

S/

N State PAYE

Direct


1 Abia ------- ------- --------- --------- 16,751,700,375.58

2 Adamaw

a 2,155,355,615.00 190,067,642.00 37,197,773.00 2,232,786,773.00 4,615,407,803.00

3 Akwa

Ibom 11,778,644,460.00

1,160,956,172.0

0 208,510,787.00 368,698,731.00 13,516,810,150.00

4 Anambra 3,386,788,321.00 325,307,379.83 3,004,900.00 3,886,484,411.32 7,601,585,012.15

5 Bauchi 3,442,908,080.08 177,320,694.75 194,019,541.51 250,462,108.89 4,064,710,425.23

6 Bayelsa ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 4,958,806,727.00

7 Benue 4,925,285,057.71 422,463,132.05 147,724,886.00 2,941,087,533.22 8,436,560,608.98

8 Borno 2,041,770,828.56 90,141,864.56 130,625,054.00 182,075,458.31 2,444,613,205.37

9 Cross

River 6,465,208,527.00 295,807,911.00 90,235,596.00 5,883,308,299.00 12,734,560,333.00

10 Delta 42,564,709,027.66 123,411,375.45 244,194,575.30 2,634,582,502.59 45,566,897,481.00

11 Ebonyi ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

12 Edo ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 18,880,055,380.83

13 Ekiti ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3,787,607,515.35

14 Enugu 4,455,456,710.00 239,329,529.00 7,514,801,444.0

0

12,209,587,683.0

0

15 Gombe 1,716,274,865.23 3,671,000.00 104,904,715.00 1,892,338,282.99 3,717,188,863.22

16 Imo 5,632,939,821.02 778,922,167.27 128,884,463.00 269,475,505.75 6,810,221,957.04

17 Jigawa ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

18 Kaduna 7,054,873,055.70 343,973,885.90 172,081,244.00 3,960,867,776.09 11,531,795,961.69

19 Kano ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 11,051,971,481.61

20 Katsina 3,168,077,523.00 425,975,523.00 42,612,890.00 1,393,054,910.00 5,029,720,846.00

21 Kebbi 1,941,628,838.15 1,712,740,266.0

9 29,275,548.60 1,740,371,195.81 5,424,015,848.65

22 Kogi 2,805,541,214.38 4,318,110.70 77,334,481.53 298,265,743.11 3,185,459,549.72

23 Kwara 4,201,129,114.59 418,581,823.12 225,885,935.00 6,471,672,711.65 11,317,269,584.36

24 Lagos 172,435,519,871.6

5

1,892,228,477.3

0

4,361,443,205.7

1

40,513,135,289.0

0

219,202,426,843.8

9

25 Nasaraw

a 3,681,705,189.23 8,258,478.00 105,554,518.14 336,764,627.31 4,132,282,812.68

26 Niger ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3,782,827,634.99

27 Ogun ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 12,438,765,025.22

28 Ondo 5,037,341,484.85 138,487,710.00 187,909,346.20 4,789,304,055.96 10,153,042,597.01

29 Osun ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5,020,250,633.94

30 Oyo 8,045,208,073.01 227,824,353.42 650,624,526.25 5,675,151,770.60 14,598,808,723.10

31 Plateau 5,270,439,533.31 24,104,383.75 190,805,635.71 1,442,509,100.30 6,927,858,653.07

32 Rivers 55,099,480,984.70 22,075,206.77 485,932,711.24 10,668,209,773.3

0 66,275,698,676.01

33 Sokoto 2,506,283,575.52 8,147,532.18 41,604,488.00 1,757,663,410.33 4,313,699,006.03

34 Taraba 1,795,489,099.44 272,339,313.46 63,841,795.00 1,286,619,783.43 3,418,289,991.33

35 Yobe 1,034,904,582.39 4,118,600.00 58,943,516.25 687,254,362.31 1,785,221,060.95

36 Zamfara 1,421,161,673.31 228,023,848.41 18,162,185.00 925,587,433.23 2,592,935,139.95



10

Table 5: Detailed Sources of Internally Generated Revenue Summary by States according to Sub-heads

between 2011-2012 in N bn

S/

N State PAYE

Direct


1 Abia ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 11,763,510,585.

86

2 Adamaw

a 1 ,899,535,737.12 104,657,578.09 22,781,131.00 2,092,007,235.72

4,118,981,681.9

3

3 Akwa

Ibom

10,115,487,642.0

0

1,004,062,874.0

0 213,390,723.00 345,579,745.00

11,678,520,984.

00

4 Anambra ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6,148,922,395.0

0

5 Bauchi 2,820,600,400.40 34,092,055.01 353,487,118.43 1,255,600,878.08 4,463,780,451.9

2

6 Bayelsa ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 4,710,021,000.0

0

7 Benue 4,207,752,868.85 276,216,194.69 38,734,363.00 6,608,640,108.04 11,131,343,534.

58

8 Borno 1,933,972,994.60 12,519,862.00 147,364,540.00 188,245,303.16 2,282,102,699.7

6

9 Cross

River 5,244,042,875.00 132,764,953.00 65,382,385.00 3,717,461,735.00

9,159,651,948.0

0

10 Delta 33,193,235,666.6

4 102,537,478.49 145,161,865,49 1,309,146,871.31

34,750,081,881.

93

11 Ebonyi 1,879,007,880.84 259,783,398.36 3,432,950.00 11,891,166,929.7

0

14,033,391,158.

90

12 Edo ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 14,764,018,237.

44

13 Ekiti 2,009,999,119.02 97,834,266.60 105,080,231.83 276,883,573.88 2,489,797,191.3

3

14 Enugu 2,605,091,930.00 128,044,326.00 268,603,338.00 4,285,421,705.00 7,287,161,299.0

0

15 Gombe ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3,153,362,788.3

5

16 Imo 4,493,196,299.62 669,861,664.57 134,607,033.06 508,797,991.97 5,806,462,989.2

2

17 Jigawa ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1,482,918,912.8

8

18 Kaduna 6,949,624,700.37 161,584,838.43 138,379,100.00 2,532,357,519.16 9,781,946,157.9

6

19 Kano ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6,618,936,565.0

4

20 Katsina ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 4,239,692,674.0

0

21 Kebbi 1,897,324,192.05 1,333,431,941.8

1 22,650,252.40 1,218,991,235.21

4,472,397,621.4

7

22 Kogi 2,412,561,275.16 23,314,575.90 45,963,375.00 366,717,556.09 2,848,556,782.1

5

23 Kwara 2,750,219,413.11 406,923,624.39 217,329,440.00 5,442,185,467.00 8,816,657,944.5

0

24 Lagos 120,249,472,186.

90

7,967,253,449.7

0

74,544,336,043.

00

202,761,061,679.

60


11

25 Nasaraw

a ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

4,132,282,812.6

8

26 Niger 2,863,461,594.91 130,245,909.71 26,291,075.00 544,072,199.95 3,564,070,779.5

7

27 Ogun 8,522,549,120.62 1,427,122,038.0

6 154,886,568.89 734,140,675.63

10,838,698,403.

20

28 Ondo 4 ,100,327,273.17 146,017,687.00 184,740,553.05 3,584,639,862.04 8,015,725,375.2

6

29 Osun ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7,398,572,036.4

8

30 Oyo 47,743,459,879.0

4

5,201409,330.0

6

4,243,011,798.0

4 8,915,603,182.50 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

31 Plateau 3,524,061,846.80 88,589,308.25 907,971,462.32 4,520,622,617.37 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

32 Rivers 43,267,564,415.1

7

5,201,409,330.0

6

4,243,011,798.0

4

52,711,985,543.2

7 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

33 Sokoto 2,499,596,144.87 6,718,936.56 29,548,555.00 1,649,290,064.70 4,185,153,701.1

3

34 Taraba 1,453,303,855.22 119,157,901.09 30,612,305.00 1,265,957,437.61 2,869,031,498.9

2

35 Yobe 1,481,330,347.96 165,531,907.06 119,000,526.38 619,790,995.54 2,385,653,776.9

4

36 Zamfara ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1,714,432,462.6

3



2010 in N bn

S/

N State PAYE

Direct


1 Abia ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 11,124,643,033.2

2 11,124,643,033.22

2 Adamaw

a 1,508,374,274.99 248,687,408.14 23,748,680.00 2,427,227,414.32 4,208,037,781.45

3 Akwa

Ibom 9,005,363,053 691,855,598 392-,557,215 44,183,061 10,133,958,927

4 Anambra 3,345,584,688.92 1,001,821,819.4

7 376,051,744.77 2,932,337,519.52 7,655,785,733.05

5 Bauchi ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3,402,848,015.39

6 Bayelsa ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 4,710,021,000.00

7 Benue 4,479,040,612.69 236,377,813.81 374,398,891.66 1,787,873,311 6,877,690,630.00

8 Borno 1,565,911,197.43 18,920,571 264,882,505 258,898,711.82 2,108,612,985.25

9 Cross

River 3,704,703,293.00 157,609,028.00 35,680,756.00 3,972,948,838.00 7,870,941,915.00

10 Delta ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 26,087,346,526.00

11 Ebonyi 1,685,208,909.92 184,632,685.32 17,898,548.00 11,110,529,064.4

5 12,998,269,207.69

12 Edo 6,785,209,604.11 393,071,890 455,230,623.00 3,018,487,239.29 10,651,999,356.60

13 Ekiti 1,285,595,636.33 34,568,573.04 34,244,666.71 199,611,449.56 1,554,020,325.64

14 Enugu 2,291,911,363.00 636,513,542 211,706,220 10,655,380,690 13,795,511,815

15 Gombe 1,326,246,481.88 122,824,211.00 27,045,600.00 1,478,752,278.26 2,954,868,571.34


12

16 Imo 4,424,005,978.14 421,913,015.17 192,411,546.74 676,224,007.67 5,714,554,547.72

17 Jigawa ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1,241,956,756.54

18 Kaduna ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 11,564,414,063.48

19 Kano 4,930,606,710.05 105,832,424.07 180,165,337.00 1,402,332,093.92 6,618,936,565.04

20 Katsina ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3,151,689,985.00

21 Kebbi 1,889,221,471.21 12,438,003.00 1,905,599,338.2

1 3,807,258,812.42 3,807,258,812.42

22 Kogi ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2,217,504,390.25

23 Kwara ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7,295,348,963.22

24 Lagos 104,680,721,864.7

3

7,507,947,789.7

1 ---------------

37,777,713,542.0

8

149,966,383,196.4

7

25 Nasaraw

a 1,460,588,426.84 11,387,153 161,689,633.75 216,876,749.57 1,850,541,963.18

26 Niger 2,660,434,250.57 50,386,542.08 81,499,525.00 464,894,576.95 3,257,215,894.60

27 Ogun 5,510,105,570.39 1,310,752,736.6

3 253,914,283.43 842,889,751.47 7,917,662,341.92

28 Ondo 2,392,414,938.47 132,105,110.31 370,150,603.03 3,585,702,264.88 6,480,372,916.69

29 Osun ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3,376,735,645.43

30 Oyo ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 10,488,362,233.80

31 Plateau 2,731,386,694.43 100,163,062.00 567,265,504.64 3,398,815,261.07 3,398,815,261.07

32 Rivers 43,267,564,415.17 1,644,854,506.4

1 ---------------- 4,672,591,384.46 49,632,280,280.92

33 Sokoto ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3,888,400,925.16

34 Taraba 672,229,414.51 115,853,025.67 26,752,105.00 469,910,877.22 1,284,745,422

35 Yobe 1,880,066,435.89 533,881,328.51 217,782,985.23 3,328,771,589.79 5,960,502,339.45

36 Zamfara ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2,068,729,575,95


Statistics further showed that Lagos as expected generated the highest IGR in 2013, bringing in N384.258b

equivalent to 76.9% of its 2013 budget of N499.10b. South South: Rivers N87.9b, South East: Enugu N20.2b,

North Central: Kwara N13.83b, North West: Kastina N6.85b and North East: Taraba N3.34b. The above

shows the significant difference between Lagos and other states in the federation. Ultimately, a single state

had revenue 86.22% higher than some of the 13 states together (N206.344b in that year). The NBS data

further showed that no other state was able to go beyond the 30% mark for IGR as a percentage of budget

expenditure for 2013 as could be seen in table 7 below.

Table 7: Some States IGR as Percentage of their 2013 Budget

S/N States IGR

(b’N)

2013 Budget

(b’N)

IGR % of

Budget

1 Akwa Ibom 15.39 470.1 3.25

2 Bayelsa 10.5 304.05 3.45

3 Delta 50.2 472 10.63

4 Anambra 8.73 110.9 7.87

5 Taraba 3.34 73 4.57

6 Yobe 3.072 88.6 3.46

7 Plateau 8.404 133.4 6.3

8 Katsina 6.85 114.1 6

Source: CBN Report (2013)


13

This implies that most states will be unable to pay salaries if the slide in the oil prices persists. Hence the

fact that most Nigerian state is not viable without oil revenue allocations from the center. The “curse” of the

oil dependency only encouraged government officials to pay little attention to growing the economic base

which would have helped the states to become more independent, (Balogun, 2015).

8. Analyses of the Present Revenue System and its Weaknesses

Over the years, it has been observed that many states are not enhancing their capacities to collect or

expand their tax bases. Every year the same figures are projected as total internally generated revenue in

their budgets while corresponding personnel costs increases (Balogun 2015). Hence, any reduction in the

collection of statutory revenue from the federation account results in personal costs being unpaid. This

makes such states not economically viable for existence (El-Rufia, 2012). Substantiating the above, a former

Governor of Abia State Theodore Orji (2013:2) lamented thus, “we have had persistent problem in revenue

generation, we inherited a monthly IGR of N200 million which now hovers around N250 million, which is not

acceptable because there is a lot of money in Abia. Because of the poor IGR, the state now depends solely on

federal allocation”. Governor Orji then expressed worry that if they do not get anything from the federation

account, the state is doomed. He expressed optimism that if they are comfortable with their IGR, there will

be no problem. He went further to express, “our people are violently averse to payment of taxes and levies.

We have no base, no data; we are doing permutation up and down. We don’t know how many houses we have

in Umuahia, how many sloops in Ariria Market, Aba and many other places. What we inherited here are

agents of corruption. What we have on ground in Ariria International Market are agents who pay to

individuals and not to the government and these things need to be abolished”. The above exposition clearly

implies that the internally Generated Revenue system in the state is problematic.

Abia State is not alone in this problem. Participants in an interactive session during a workshop

organized by Anambra State government in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP) from 17th to 20th November 2014 for the training of local government chairmen councilors and senior

management staff in the state on “Government budgeting, monitoring and evaluation techniques; Policy

analysis and advocacy and; Internal revenue forecasting and generation”, revealed that in the State Board of

Internal Revenue myriad of problems inherent in the current systems of operation underscores why the state

persistently perform poorly in her internally generated revenue. From the discussions held, the following

problems associated with the current system were extracted:

(1) Because the current system is completely manual, and records are kept in files, retrieval of records

for proper assessment by the director of the board in a very tedious task. Assessment is therefore a

neglected task giving the staff opportunity to do what they like.

(2) Files on which data are recorded are easily mutilated and security of information is very low.

(3) Retrieval and assembly of relevant data for decision making takes a very long time.

(4) The absence of centralized repository for data makes the level of redundancy high. This in turn

increases the level of inconsistencies. Records are not consistent across various units.

(5) There is lack of proper auditing standard. Hence, staff can issue receipt without proper recording and

keep the money in his/her pocket.

(6) The computation of the total revenue from all the board of internal revenue sub-units within the state

is always difficult, time consuming and prone to errors.

(7) Computation of total revenue generated at the different area offices outside Awka and from the

various revenue sources in full of errors.

(8) Error in the computation of Direct tax for self employed citizens is always as a result of the corrupt

nature of the assessment officers.

(9) Staff of the Board of Internal Revenue in-charge of vehicle registration often charges vehicle owners

an amount which is about 80% higher than the government approved rate. As a result, vehicle owners

run away from vehicle registration there to other neighbouring states like Delta, Enugu, Ebonyi,

Kogi, and Benue. The amount collected is always less than what is written on the receipt issued.

(10) There is always error in the computation of PAYE. While some employees who did not offer bribe to

assessment officers are over taxed, others who greased their palms are under taxed. Sometimes some

are mistakenly or very deliberately ignored.

(11) There is the inability of the staff of the Revenue Board to quickly and accurately produce a list of self

employed citizens who evade tax for prompt action to be taken against them.


14

(12) There is the inability of the staff of the Revenue Board to quickly and accurately produce a list of

vehicle owners whose vehicle particulars and driving license are expired for prosecution.

(13) There is always delay in the remittance of the generated internal revenue to the state treasury as a

result of the huge computation involved in bringing together all revenues from the various area

offices in the state. This makes it difficult for the state government to respond to her obligations to

citizens as and when necessary.

(14) Above all, the attitude of the politicians in government to use revenue generation in the state as a

means of political patronage thereby contracting them out to their cronies, godfathers and war-lords

within the state even without consultations with the state Board of Internal Revenue poses a great

challenge to effective internal revenue generation in the state.

The implication of the above revelation on the internally generated revenue capacity of Anambra State for

example is clear. The expected sources of internal revenue for the state government which include taxes,

fines and fees, licenses, sales earnings, rent on government property interest on short-team loans,

reimbursements, dividends and others between 2005 and 2007 could only generate the amount as presented

in table 8 below.

Table 8: Anambra State Revenue 2005-2007

Heads Budget 2005

N’MM

Budget 2006

N’MM

Budget 2007

N’MM

Taxes 1,510 1,655 4,304

Fines and fees 700 888 1,522

Licenses 250 230 446

Earnings and sales 25 42 68

Rent on Government Reports 105 147 200

Interest on short team loan, deposit and

repayment 60 20 550

Dividend 105 100 400

Reimbursement 50 50 60

Miscellaneous 1,019 366 818

Total: Internally Generated Revenue 3,720 3,600 8,400

State Share of Federal Revenue 17,400 20,000 32,600

Value Added Tax 2,040 - -

Grand Total: Recurrent Revenue 23,160 24,000 41,00

Source: Understanding Budgets. 2012. PREDEMS Resources Materials

Analyses show the following: the major sources of internal revenue were taxes, fines and fees,

reimbursements and interest on short term deposits; tax revenues are highest in 2007 possibly due to

increase in businesses or increase in fiscal effort by the government; reimbursements represent 38.6% in

2006 while taxes, fines and fees stood at 17.9%; and, other sources include rent on government properties;

interest and short term loan and dividends from investment in shares.

Summary of the revenue profile for the period show that the projected consolidated revenue fund in the

Anambra State budget made up of IGR and the state’s share of the federation account (FACC) and the value-

added tax proportion is as follows:

Table 9: Anambra State Revenue Profile 2005-2007

Revenue Sources

2005 2006 2007

N’

Billion %

N’

Billion %

N’

Billion %

Internally generated revenue (IGR) 3.7 16.06 3.6 15.00 8.4 20.48

State share of federation Acc (FAC) 17.4 75.13 20.4 85.00 32.6 79.52

Value added tax 2.1 8.8 - - - -

Total 23.2 100.0 24.0 100.00 41.0 100.0

Source: Understanding Budgets 2012. PREDEMS Resources Materials


15

Analyses show the following: about 80% of the state revenue comes from FACC allocation; 20% of the

revenue was internally generated. This shows that the state is highly dependent on its share of federation

account which is not the best mix in revenue structure”, (ANSG/UNDP, 2013:36).

9. Issues in Enhancing Internal Revenue Generation

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria clearly notes that the collection of personal

income tax, capital gains tax and stamps duties which are federal taxes which can also be collected at the

state level where a law of the National Assembly has been enacted. In addition beyond the provision in the

constitution which specifics charges that can be charged by the local governments, the constitution also

provides that the State House of Assembly can enact such laws as may be necessary and are not in conflict

with the constitution for the peace, order and good government of the state. These general provisions give

scope to the state to enact laws (for both state and local governments) that would ensure good governance

beyond those taxes and revenue sources that are enshrined in the constitution.

As a result states and local governments have taken advantage of this provision in the constitution

and the enactment of the taxes and levies (Approved list for collection) Act of 1998 as amended (FIRS

Establishment Act, 2007), to have several sources of revenue within the state. For clarity and to avoid

misinterpretation, state governments need to codify all taxes, levies and users charges chargeable in the

state and local governments. To this end, there is the need to further refine this law to be in line with the

constitution and to ensure a clearer definition of tax, levy and user charges. Apart from revenue for

development, taxation strengthens governance in a way: since it flows from citizens pocket, the payment

compels citizens to ask questions and show interest in how those entrusted with the management of our

common wealth, discharge such responsibilities. The following issues then need to be considered in

enhancing internal revenue generation:

1) Accountability for Revenue Generated: Improved information and statistics of all revenue generated

at all levels is required for improved decision making. To date, a holistic picture of such statistics is

not readily available in a complete and on a timely basis.

2) Automation and Information Sharing: Automation is critical for an effective tax administration. It will

help eliminate wastage and tremendously improve efficiency, transparency and accountability. With

automation, information sharing and collaboration among tax jurisdictions becomes easier. Such

automation should link tax authorities to various data bases that enable the assessment of income to

be handled in a more effective manner. These include land registries, banking systems, vehicle

registration systems, etc.

3) Capacity Building: Each tax authority should have a robust training programme driven by clear

nationwide standards that are set in a manner that will ensure focus on the needed competencies for

effective and efficient performance and based on proper training needs analysis. Recruitment policies

and practices should also be based on needed skills, knowledge and experience. Capacity building

should emphasize what it takes to ensure proper and effective administration of the tax and related

laws. Existing laws that abhor the use of tax consultants who take over the responsibilities of the

revenue officers should be retained to encourage renewed focus on building the tax institution and

having a core of well trained staff within the institution, (Kiabel & Nwokah, 2009).

4) Taxpayer Education and Creating Friendly Service Oriented Environment: The tax paying public

needs to be given proper and adequate sensitization on a sustainable bases to let them know their

rights, duties and obligations under the relevant tax laws. The tax authorities should also strive to

create a friendly tax environment without creating confusion to the tax payer. The more tax

authorities and government work together, the better for the revenues that can be generated from

such collaboration, (Ayegba, 2013).

5) Tackling the Underground Economy: The underground economy, otherwise known as the informal

sector is made up of businesses which are not only intractable but also intentionally outside the tax

net. While this is a global phenomenon it is more pronounced in the developing world. In Nigeria it is


16

a serious threat to the integrity of the entire tax system. All hands must be on deck to work together

to effectively tax this sector. For individual tax payers, apart from those in regular paid employment,

the problem of tracking tax payers outside the tax net is even more challenging especially with certain

communities where the house numbering system is a major challenge and the national identification

system is still ineffective. The underground economy includes individuals, registered businesses and

corporate bodies generating billions of naira in business transactions in: petty businesses such as

dress making, car wash, mechanic workshops, hair dressing, rentals, barbing salons, taxi business

(registered and unregistered), cargo handling, drug dealing, money laundering, smuggling,

prostitution, etc. The underground economy also includes a situation where tax payers are reporting

to the relevant tax authority but do not report on all items they should be reporting on, (Ibrahim,

2010). Collaborations amongst all tiers of government and with the leadership of vocational bodies,

trade associations and community leaders will greatly assist this process.

6) Use of Tax Revenue: Judicious and transparent use of tax revenue, through visible projects, should be

encouraged at all tiers of government. The culture of demanding accountability from the executive

arm of government through media briefs and town hall meetings should be developed and sustained

and would help build a culture of voluntary tax compliance.

7) Delineation between Tax and User Charges: We should increasingly differentiate between tax – a

compulsory levy and user charge – which is tied to recovering costs from services provided to users.

Both provide sources of internally generated revenue but with separate manner of application and use

at all tiers of government. This way issue of multiple taxation could be reduced and combined with

improved tax payer education, tax payers can relate payments to services rendered.

8) Wealth Creation and Equitable Income Distribution as a Panacea to Multiple Taxation: For years, the

Joint Tax Board has issued communiqués educating the public on the laws abhorring multiple

taxation and the need for the individual tax payer to understand his rights and responsibilities.

However, all these haven’t worked and a deeper understanding of the problem suggests that it is

much more than a taxation issue but more of a source of income for individuals who believe that they

have no other means of creating wealth (Tapang, 2012). There is also the need for equitable

distribution of income at both the government and individual level to give to each, their due and to

reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. Increasingly, creating wealth and a growing economy

beneficial to all the residents and citizenry would not only assist in curbing multiple taxation, it will

also assist in growing the tax base. In addition, improved support for and enforcement of tax laws

should also assist in this regard.

10. Strategies for Improving State Internally Generated Revenue (IGR)

It is generally accepted that “adversity breeds creativity”. That Lagos state did not receive its federal

allocation for period of about five years or more forced it to become a self-sufficient state. It is hoped that the

pressure to diversify and focus less on the center will compel states to explore alternatives for improving

their revenue base (Balogun 2015). Today, Lagos remains self-sufficient and generates at least 75% of its

revenue from its IGR. This has been facilitated by implementing certain measures aimed at ensuring the

following:

i) Eliminating all sources of revenue leakages especially through tax payers, revenue officials and

banks.

ii) Creating an online data base in respect of taxpayers whose taxpaying habits are monitored real-time.

iii) Generating with a high degree of accuracy projected revenue of future periods from all sources.

iv) Generating reports showing revenue distribution by revenue types and revenue agency.

(v) Showing distribution of revenue collected geographically.

In line with the above, the following strategies are therefore suggested for the enhancement of internal

revenue generation in states so as to avoid their dependence on the federation account allocations. To

maximize internal revenue generation three (3) strategic objectives have been identified. Two of the strategic

objectives are in aspect of taxes collected by Board of Internal Revenue while the third is in respect of non-

tax revenues collected by revenue units.


17

The direct taxes of PAYE and personal income tax which is legislated for in their tax laws allows the

greatest scope for the maximization of IGR in two ways (or strategic objectives). The strategic objectives are:

Strategy I: Increasing the tax payer base, that is, identifying tax payers that are not already paying tax,

implementing new taxes or increase rates. The above will entail systematic collection of information to

increase the taxpayer’s data base. Existence of a comprehensive tax payer data base will lead to

improvement in statistical information underlying revenue estimation and ultimately achieve state IGR

goal. As seen earlier, currently, the state annual revenue estimates are not based on empirical data rather

estimates are mere guess approximations that may be close to or off the mark.

Strategy II: Improving tax payer compliance, through audit, penalties, and enforcement of outstanding

debts. Based on critical analysis of the challenges that limit IGR performance, four clear high level themes

were identified. The high level themes directed towards maximizing revenue generation by increasing

taxpayer base and improving taxpayer compliance are as follows:

i. Ensuring appropriate system and process.

ii. Appropriate human resource and environment.

iii. Tax payer and public education.

iv. Underpinned legal mandate and appropriate finding.

To execute the above strategies, the following actions are suggested:

1. It is important for the tax authorities to be able to identify its tax payers by location, nature of

business and tax type payable via a modern interactive tax payer database. In an efficient tax system,

a tax payer database which provides functional processes to register tax payers by tax type, to assess

tax payers and provide data for debt collection, enforcement and audit is essential. In focusing on a

tax payer data base sometimes recognized as an Integrated Tax Administration System (ITAS), which

is integrated with Tax Identification Number (TIN), all other taxes, duties, licenses and any other

payments contributing to the revenue collections will be identified for each tax payer thus providing a

high level of assurance that maximum taxes are collected.

2. To achieve No.1 above, an effective means of tax identification Number (TIN) registration through

various tactics like street combing, designated centers and liaising with other stakeholders and other

government departments who have access to data of individuals in all capacities such as banks,

institutions and churches should be employed. The use of data already within government together

with other sources is the only way to effectively guarantee complete registration.

3. In line with No. 2 above, efforts should be made by tax authorities to register tax payers electronically

in all states. The TIN process should be more seriously emphasized and built upon and the

registration for TIN should be a mandatory process just as the Bank Verification Number (BVN) and

the SIM Card Registration exercises recently done. The TIN will provide a common platform for

registering all entities that are required to pay any tax, fee or other non-tax revenues. This will

provide a foundation for an accurate and complete tax payer base and a good foundation for achieving

real time tax collection which is a global focus of all modern tax systems. Equally, the use of Tax

Clearance Certificate (TCC) and in some cases the Electronic Tax Clearance Certificate (e-TCC)

should be a motivating factor for any entity to register. If an entity is required to do any kind of

business with government then that entity should be required to hold a legitimate TCC to carry out

that business.

4. To support the strategic objectives, there are dependencies within the tax system which require

support to allow the goals to be achieved. Central to the improvements as outlined are the electronic

systems which are necessary to progress to a modern taxation system starting with the full

implementation of TIN and interface with an ITAS which can identify tax payers by location, tax type

and nature of business. This will involve:

a. Designing of the appropriate minimum tax-payer information that it will require (including PAYE,

Organization, Mapping and so on);

b. Developing electronic forms, records, and reports for smooth tax administration;

c. Developing a data base, using the required information (possibly using Microsoft Access program);

d. Designing a computer network that will link all the departments and tax administrators; using the

existing server and computers (additional computers might be needed);


18

e. Providing back-up power system and link remote out stations; and

f. Train the relevant staff.

The ITAS alone will not address all the issues as this cannot work in isolation of the procedures required for

which the system will support. These are embedded in the functions required to operate the effective and

efficient collection of taxes. There is therefore the need to point out here that the main function of tax

collection are registration, assessment, debt management, enforcement and audit as initially mentioned.

Similarly, processes and systems cannot work without people, that is, human resources of the State Board of

Internal Revenue and the tax payers who ultimately pay all the direct taxes and non-tax revenues. Reforms

are therefore required in these areas to move ahead with strategic direction of IGR.

Strategy III: To allow for maximization of IGR from the other revenue units outside taxes, the third strategic

objective is therefore the developing of potential non-tax revenue sources. The following sources of revenue

could be developed to ensure improved revenue generation: Registration and renewal of private healthcare

facilities; registration and renewal of patent medicine stores; produce inspection fees; veterinary certificate

fees; vehicle inspection and road-worthiness; registration and renewal of business premises; ground rents;

land registration; stamp duties; registration and renewal of private educational institutions; development of

tourist sites and recreation facilities; tracking of other revenue sources within the underground economy;

among others.

The four high level themes earlier mentioned and activities discussed above are equally applicable

here under this strategic objective but in addition, the following activities are suggested:

i. Provision of additional resources for each ministry’s revenue administration function, example,

provision of motor vehicles and motor cycles and computers as well as for staff development.

ii. The Board of Internal Revenue should work with MDAs to carry out a review of its tariffs and fee

structure to ensure that they are realistic and consistent with prevailing economic conditions;

iii. The Board of Internal Revenue in collaboration with Ministry of Finance should negotiate revenue

performance targets with the MDAs based on estimates drawn from Board of Internal Revenue

comprehensive data base.

The tactical plans for achieving these strategic objectives can be summarized in this matrix thus:


19

To Maximize Internal Revenue Generation

Appropriate Systems

and Processes to

Increase Internal

Revenue Generation

Appropriate Human

Resources and

Environment for

revenue administration

Tax Payer and Public

Education

Automate collection systems

and eradicate cash/cheque

payments made to MDAs and

BIR;

Provide an accurate data base

integrated with TIN and the

assessment and collection

systems which will store data for

registered tax payers;

To formalize the TCC system and

make it obligatory to obtain a

TCC in any dealings with

government institutions;

To make presentation of TIN as

requirement for transactions

with government to give

motivation for registrations;

Designate special courts to

handle tax and non-tax revenue

matters;

Assign intelligent and dedicated

lawyers to prosecute tax and

non-tax revenue defaulters;

Centralize assessment,

collection and accounting

mechanism of all revenues;

Diversify and identify other

revenue sources other than the

existing ones;

BIR to engage services of

professionals to review

Review and amend State

Board of Internal Revenue

law;

Grant administrative and

financial autonomy to the

state BIR;

Approve 10% of total IGR

to fund BIR operations;

Institutional and functional

review of state BIR;

Implement

recommendations for the

review;

Ensure staff have the skills,

qualities and knowledge or

potential to do the

required job;

Perform training needs

analysis of the BIR and

revenue collecting units of

MDAs;

Coordinated training of

revenue staff in line with

recommendations of

training needs analysis;

Provision of new offices,

head office, working tools,

equipment and vehicles;

Ensuring that corrupt

officials are not seen

anywhere around the

Continue and improve upon the

current tax payer education

programme;

Organization of workshops with

trade groups, civil organizations,

etc;

Collaborate with banks,

churches, institution and other

third party sources to collect

information on potential tax

payers to be used to up date and

ensure comprehensive tax

payers data base;

High level dialogue and

education;

Dialogue with business

organizations including public

institutions to compel their

customers and clients to disclose

their TINs for business

transactions;

Introduce presumptive tax for

small informal traders;

Standard rates of taxes for

individuals within professional

groups or persons in the same

trade using year of profession.

Underpinned by Legal Mandate and Appropriate Funding


20

11. Anticipated Benefits of Adopting these Strategies

The effective implementation of these strategies has both tangible and intangible benefits some of

which include:

1. Strict adherence to due process and established procedure. The collection and accounts department is

the brain box of the revenue board. The implementation of these strategies will allow this department

to effectively coordinate the operations of other subordinate units by allowing them to carry out their

own part of the transactions.

2. Diversion of revenue generated by the staff of the Board is eliminated as all payments will be made

through the bank and are automated.

3. These strategies will clearly show the tax payers the approved rates and will reduce over charges as

government approved charges are entered into the data base by only authorized staff and not subject

to modification by any revenue officer.

4. It will be possible for the Board to quickly and accurately identify tax evaders for necessary

prohibitive actions to be taken against them. This will enhance revenue generation.

5. The provision of a centralized repository for data will be made possible and this will reduce the level of

redundancy and inconsistencies currently seen in the system.

6. The cost of moving data from one unit to another or from one area office to another will be highly

reduced as all data transfer will be done through the network.

7. Decision making will be facilitated as vital information retrieval and assembling can be speedily done

thereby saving time and energy.

8. Errors in computation will be highly reduced and security of data will be enhanced.

12. Conclusion

All states of the federation have the potential to survive on IGR if the right parameters are set out for

them. States are often considered weak in the IGR management because most of them don’t apply the

appropriate strategy that could help them enhance their revenue base. Issues such as absence of

comprehensive information on the key economic activities that can generate income to the state always affect

the revenue flow from internal sources. It is therefore important for government to look inwards and start to

engage in encouraging resource development within their localities. Apart from improving economic

activities it also creates an expanded tax base. If the right parameters are set out, all states in the federation

can generate enough revenue without depending on the statutory allocations from the central government.

The potentials of states are hidden within their territories and must be explored and exploited urgently. The

state board of internal revenue should therefore be adequately empowered so that they can step up their

functions in this regard through the use of information technology.

REFERENCES

Adesoji, A.A. & Chike, F.O. (2013), “The Effect of Internal Revenue Generation on Infrastructural

Development: A study of Lagos State Internal Revenue Service”, Journal of Educational and Social Research,

3(2), May. Pp. 419-436.

Alao, D.O. & Alao, E.M. (2013), “Strategic Control and Revenue Generation: A Critical Success factor in

local Government using the Balanced Scorecard,” Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review,

(Nigerian Chapter) 1(10), 24-35.

ANSG/UNDP, (2013), Toolkit on Government Budgeting. Enugu: New Generation Ventures Ltd.

Arrow, D. (1970), “The Role of Public and Private Sectors”. Cited in Holcombe, R.G., (1997), “A Theory of the

Theory of Public Good”. Review of Australian Economics 1.10 (1) 1-22.

Ayegba, S.F. (2013), “Automated Internal Revenue Processing System: A Panacea for Financial Problems in

Kogi State,” West African Journal of Industrial and Academic Research, 7(1), June, Pp. 56-69.


21

Balogun, A. (2015), “Developing Internally Generated Revenue in an era of

Diversification”,(http://www.vanguardngr.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/TAX-jpg). Retrieved 4.47pm

10/27/2015.

CBN, (2013), Annual Financial Report, Abuja: Federal Ministry of Finance.

Elamah, O. (2015), “Enhancing Internally Generated Revenue in Edo State: Issues, Prospects and

Challenges”. The Nigerian Observer. Monday October 26.

El-Rufai, N. (2012), Challenges associated with IGR collection. Retrieved from

OX13UQ,[email protected]. 10/27/2015.

F.R.N., (1999), The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Abuja: Federal Ministry of Information

Press.

FIRS, (2007), Federal Inland Revenue Services Establishment Act 2007, Abuja: Ministry of Finance

Publications.

Ibrahim, A. (2010), “An Assessment of Internally Generated Revenue in Sabon-Gari and Zaria Local

Government Areas of Kaduna State”. Revenue Digest, Kaduna: Ministry of Information.

Kiabel, B.D. & Nwokah, N.G., (2009), “Boosting Revenue Generation by Governments in Nigeria: The Tax

Consultant Option Revisited”, European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1).

Mckinon, D. (1997), “Financing local Budgets”. Cited in Bailey, S.J. (2002). Public sector economics: Theory, Policy and Practice. (2nd ed.) Hampshire: Palmgrave.

Musgrave, N. (1959), “Public Finance”. Cited in Holcombe, R.G., (1997), “A Theory of the Theory of Public

Good”. Review of Australian Economics 1.10 (1) 1-22.

NBS, (2004), Budget Analyses, Abuja: National Bureau of Statistics.

Neil, R., (2011), Strategic Management Boston: Ventus Publishing Aps.

Nigeria Governor’s Forum (2012), “Improving revenue generation through taxation in Nigeria.” Workshop Communiqué. Abuja. DFID p.2.

Norton, D. & Kaplan, D. (2012), The Strategy Focused Organization, New York: Harvard Business School

Press.

Okoh, R.N. (2004), Revenue sharing in Nigeria: A retrospective evaluation. In Garba, A.G., Equraikhide, F.

& Adenikinju, A. (eds.). Leading issues in macroeconomic management and development, Ibadan: Nigeria

Economic Society.

Okolie, D.O. & Eze, F.E. (2004), Local Government Administration in Nigeria, Enugu: John Jacob Classic

Publishers Ltd.

Olusola, O.O. (2011), “Boosting internally generated revenue in local government”. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(1).

Orji, T.A. (2013), “Abia State Introduces New Method to Improve Internal Revenue”, Business News, April

11. P.25.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/TAX-jpg).%20Retrieved


22

Samuelson, P. (1955), “The Theory of Public Goods”. Cited in Holcombe, R.G., (1997), “A Theory of the

Theory of Public Good”. Review of Australian Economics 1.10 (1) 1-22.

Samuelson, P., (1954), “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure”. Cited in Holcombe, R.G., (1997), “A Theory

of the Theory of Public Good”. Review of Australian Economics 1.10 (1) 1-22.

Tapang, A.T., (2012), “The Impact of Revenue Base on Local Government Social Assets in Cross River State

Nigeria: 1996-2010.” International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 2(3).

Weingast, I. (1995), “Intergovernmental financial transfer”, Cited in Bailey, S.J. (2002). Public Sector Economics: Theory, Policy and Practice. (2nd ed.) Hampshire: Palmgrave.

Enhancing Internally Generated Revenue: Issues, Strategies ......2017, Vol, 2 (1): 1-22 Enhancing...

Documents

Transcript of Enhancing Internally Generated Revenue: Issues, Strategies ......2017, Vol, 2 (1): 1-22 Enhancing...